Think lowering Washington’s legal BAC to .05% won’t save lives? Think again | Opinion

Legal BAC debate

Re: “Lowering the legal blood alcohol limit for WA drivers will backfire. Here’s why”

Letter to the editor author Erik Bjornson is wrong when he says there is no evidence that lowering the legal blood-alcohol limit to .05 would save lives.

A National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study from 2022 showed that traffic fatalities decreased in Utah after that state lowered its BAC to .05. The National Academy of Sciences, the National Safety Council, the National Transportation Safety Board, Mothers Against Drunk Driving and many other traffic safety organizations have reached the same conclusion: .05 saves lives.

Opponents say this will lead to more DUI stops. Not true. Senate Bill 5002 is aimed at behavior change. Studies show that awareness of Utah’s new .05 law caused more drinkers to arrange designated drivers, rideshares or sober rides home.

“The goal of this bill is not to increase the number of DUI arrests but to remind and encourage people to avoid driving after drinking and thereby save lives,” said Washington State Patrol Chief John Batiste in a Washington Traffic Safety Commission press release.

Last year was the deadliest on Washington state roads since 1990. We are facing a public health crisis of traffic deaths. Impaired drivers cause more than half of all fatal crashes. It’s time to act. Tell your legislators to vote Yes on SB 5002.

Connie Ladenburg, Tacoma

Tired gun arguments

Re: “I support firearm safety. I don’t support WA Democrats’ latest assault on gun rights”

In his recent op-ed, State Sen. Keith Wagoner uses tired arguments against House Bill 1143 and Senate Bill 5211 — which would require training and licensing for the purchase of a firearm.

He offers the old argument of individual “rights” and, of course, references the Second Amendment.

Wagoner also believes that such training and licensing will do no good regarding gun-related crimes. Though I disagree with his arguments, perhaps he is correct. But we will never know unless we try it.

I have a suggestion: Rather than implement a permanent law requiring licensing and training in regard to firearms, instead we should have a time limit for the law. Enact the law and have it run for, say, five years. If there is no improvement regarding gun safety and gun-related crimes, then do away with the law. If there is an improvement, continue the law.

Wouldn’t this be good for both sides in the argument? It might show once and for all which side of the argument is most valid.

Larry Kanaster, Tacoma

Magical thinking on crime

Re: “They thought their Tacoma business could change lives. Thieves stole their confidence”

Reading the recent News Tribune article by Craig Sailor about the sad tale of the two Tacoma women whose store, Black Sheep Resale, was vandalized, I could only think about how Tacoma’s crime task force and police were simultaneously applauding and deluding themselves into thinking their crime reduction initiative is actually working. On whose terms?

The city is rife with robberies, break-ins, homeless encampments and shootings. Most recently, children have become the victims as well. What measure of success is this?

Tacoma is not a safe place to live, and the lack of response by the police, Tacoma City Council and Mayor Victoria Woodards make this story particularly hard to swallow. They should be ashamed, but that would be admitting that they (and we) are defenseless instead of appointing another commission.

We all deserve better than what this city provides: buzzwords like accountability and transparency.

Michael Magee, Tacoma